Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6311298" data-attributes="member: 18">I've pointed out the latter myself - you get around that by wielding a Shortsword or the like in your off-hand. The former isn't clear from the wording, because the attack action in 5E is a vague concept, not a discrete unit like 4E's Basic Attack. The wording of Flurry explicitly says &quot;You can use the attack action to...&quot; and TWF triggers &quot;when you take the attack action...&quot;. Are taking and using intended to be cleanly different things? They're use pretty interchangeably in most of the text, and neither is defined.This is the problem with 5E's decision to move away from the more clear and game-ish language of 4E in favour or more vague and wobbly phrasing, which is perhaps more fun to read, but much harder to discern the precise meaning of. You could be right, but you can't say for certain that you are, because the language is just too vague.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 6311298, member: 18"] I've pointed out the latter myself - you get around that by wielding a Shortsword or the like in your off-hand. The former isn't clear from the wording, because the attack action in 5E is a vague concept, not a discrete unit like 4E's Basic Attack. The wording of Flurry explicitly says "You can use the attack action to..." and TWF triggers "when you take the attack action...". Are taking and using intended to be cleanly different things? They're use pretty interchangeably in most of the text, and neither is defined. This is the problem with 5E's decision to move away from the more clear and game-ish language of 4E in favour or more vague and wobbly phrasing, which is perhaps more fun to read, but much harder to discern the precise meaning of. You could be right, but you can't say for certain that you are, because the language is just too vague. [/QUOTE]

Verification